Don't judge peer review by its occasional failings

Recent media attention on ethical misconduct in scientific publishing has raised questions about the legitimacy of peer review, the process used by scientists to verify the quality and integrity of research, writes Adrian Mulligan, associate director of research and academic relations at Elsevier.

Peer review should not be judged on the basis of occasional failings ("How was this paper ever published?", Science blog, February 13, 2008), but the strength of its daily achievements. Each year, only a small percentage of articles are withdrawn from the scientific record - some due to plagiarism, others because of dual publication, and a minority due to outright fraud. Despite the relatively minor number of infractions, publishers are continuously testing new technologies to enable the sharing of information and its verification in order to minimise the potential for fraud.

A recent global study commissioned by the Publishing Research Consortium found that 85% of scientists surveyed agree that peer review greatly helps scientific communication, while 93% of them believe peer review is necessary.

Peer review is regarded as essential to preserving scientific credibility and weeding out 'bad' science. In fact, approximately half of all papers submitted for review are rejected because they do not fall within the scope of the journals or fail to meet their quality standards. For example, more than 520,000 articles are submitted to Elsevier journals each year and, after peer review, only 260,000 are published.

Scientific articles are written in such a way as to allow the research to be repeated. Science by its very nature is self-correcting: flawed or fraudulent work will eventually be uncovered. Scientists all over the world replicate work as they advance and test their own theories - this is not the role of peer reviewers but of scientists. Due to this replication, fraud is often quickly uncovered in cutting-edge disciplines. Research can only be built upon, and serve a true purpose in science, if other scientists can test its findings and confirm its conclusions.

Ultimately, peer review is a careful system of checks and balances operating on sound training and good faith. Occasionally, faith can be broken ("Doctor accused of leak to drug maker", The New York Times, January 31, 2008). While the role of peer reviewers is to judge the quality of papers and advise on improvements, it is simply not humanly possible for any individual to have the depth of knowledge required to spot every act of plagiarism or ethical misconduct ("Scan uncovers thousands of copycat scientific articles", Scientific American, January 30 2008).

Science remains a human endeavour, ever evolving to adapt to changing needs and demands. By enforcing strict ethical codes and experimenting with new technologies, publishers are committed to minimising the incidence of scientific misconduct and potential errors in the handling of the enormous volume of data. CrossCheck, one such program currently being piloted by leading science publishers, improves the likelihood of detecting plagiarism by creating a single database of articles that can be searched and compared for overlap with other papers.

Elsevier has recently launched a Publishing Ethics Resource Kit containing ethics policies and tools to help editors deal with suspected violations. In addition, we have made all of our journals members of the Committee on Publishing Ethics, an independent "second opinion" forum for journal editors to discuss issues related to the integrity of the scientific record. Elsevier also provides reviewers with Scopus, the largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed research, enabling them rapidly to verify references and compare an article with previous work.

While peer review may not be a panacea for ethical misconduct in scientific publishing, it is essential to protect science - and the scientists whose hard work is driven by a belief in the greater public good.